Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

cold fjord writes "Despite the US cancelling his passport, Edward Snowden continues his travels aided by Wikileaks, and is leaving a trail of strained diplomatic relations in his wake. It appears China gifted the issue to Russia. From Yahoo: 'Lawyer Albert Ho, ... a Hong Kong legislator ... told reporters he was approached by Snowden several days ago, and that the American had sought assurances ... whether he could leave the city freely if he chose to do so... Snowden later told Ho an individual claiming to represent the Hong Kong government had contacted him and indicated he should leave the city, and wouldn't be stopped ... Ho said he believed the middleman was acting on Beijing's orders.' From the NYT: Julian Assange, ...said in an interview ... 'that he had raised Mr. Snowden's case with Ecuador's government and that his group had helped arrange the travel documents.' From WSJ: 'Edward Snowden has generated more than a million posts on one of China's biggest social media platforms... Sina Weibo, a popular Chinese microblogging service, exploded with activity on Sunday as Mr. Snowden left ... Mr. Snowden was hailed as a hero ... last week, but posts on Sunday and Monday were divided... "All crows are black," said a number of users, citing an Chinese old saying, to describe both American and Chinese government's surveillance programs. ... "Snowden has helped China so much. Why did we let him go?" said one ... Some suggested that China should keep Mr. Snowden as a weapon against repeated accusations of China hacking U.S. companies. More extreme users complained that China is "too soft on the U.S." "Russia is a real strong country to accept him," ... Another popular term: "hot potato," reflecting relief that Hong Kong wouldn't have to stand against U.S. efforts to take him into custody. Some users criticized Mr. Snowden for fleeing.' From the Guardian: 'Snowden's escape from Hong Kong infuriated US politicians, while China focused on condemning Washington over his latest disclosures, which suggested the NSA had hacked into Chinese mobile phone companies ... Moscow was also drawn into the controversy after it emerged that Snowden's passport had been revoked before he left Hong Kong and he did not have a visa for Russia. But Russia appeared indifferent to the uproar, with one official saying Snowden was safe from the authorities as long as he remained in the transit lounge at the city's Sheremetyevo airport. Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, said: "I know nothing."' From ABC: Snowden registered for the flight to Havana that leaves Moscow on Monday..."

Snowden has alerted the whole World that our freedom is a sham, and that our governments treat our privacy with total contempt. I hope he survives this episode and will be seen in the future as somebody who did more for regular people than any politician.

People say that all the time, but if you know of a country that offers citizens stronger assurances and greater practical liberties, we'd love to hear about it. (Preferably, those liberties should extend to immigrants as well as natives.)

If you actually lived in any random European country I doubt you'd be making that claim. I know quite a few people who DO live in a number of European countries and they'd disagree with you. Not that it's necessarily worse than the US, but it's definitely no better.

If you actually lived in any random European country I doubt you'd be making that claim. I know quite a few people who DO live in a number of European countries and they'd disagree with you. Not that it's necessarily worse than the US, but it's definitely no better.

Immigrating to Europe is a lot easier and there are no secret courts either. And if you're unemployed you're pressed to go to state paid university while on state paid welfare - boohoo! and if you want to talk about practical liberties take a look at Germany and Portugal. but saying that it's definitely no better or worse is just weasel words.

So.. still burnt. of course unless you pick Belarus, Russia or count Turkey as an European country(which you could technically do). if you just make a blanket claim you should give some examples of countries. the major thing limiting European freedoms and human rights is that some european leaders assumed that USA would act like a good boy and not mistreat people turned over to them and wouldn't abuse our airports for transfers of illegal prisoners (which is as good reason as any to deny returning Snowden to USA if they have to land midway).

of course there's some tighter limits like you can't go on acting like the Westboro baptists.

Are you serious? Yes, it's generally easier to move from one EU nation to another. But if you're coming from outside the EU, be ready for some significant obstacles. To go to Germany [wikipedia.org], be ready to satisfy similar conditions to the U.S. in terms of being a "highly skilled worker," and for some countries, like the Netherlands, you may even have to pass an exam in Dutch and on the culture of the country [wikipedia.org] before even being allowed in.

And once you're there, be prepared to meet anti-immigrant discrimination and stereotypes that are often stronger than those in the U.S. In many European countries, numerous polls suggest that the majority of the population would prefer to stop immigration altogether. (I've heard this sentiment from European friends, who are otherwise quite "liberal" compared to U.S. political standards.) The anti-immigrant discrimination is incredibly well-known, particularly for certain groups in certain countries like the Turks in Germany [wikipedia.org], or Muslims in France [wikipedia.org]. Opposition to immigrants from such groups has often lead to major demonstrations and occasionally even large-scale rioting [wikipedia.org]. There are also some mainstream political parties [wikipedia.org] in European countries that are known for opposition to immigration.

For some EU countries, it may be a little easier to immigrate from a non-EU country than it would be to come to the U.S., particularly if you are a skilled worker or have family already in the country. But the amount of discrimination and hatred against immigrants in general in many EU countries is probably much stronger than in the U.S., despite the fact that expressing such views is officially dismissed as "racist" or even criminal in many countries.

And in terms of "human rights," I suggest you spend just a minute or two Googling French prison conditions. Every 2-3 years, there's usually a big "expose" about how terrible French prisons are, all of the English-language media is suitably "shocked" that this is happening in a "civilized" country, and then everyone goes back to drinking wine and eating their Brie, while nothing ever changes.

Are EU nations better than the U.S. in protecting some rights? Sure. But it's not just the Westboro Baptists the U.S. is protecting -- freedom of speech is protecting against potentially abusive laws that try to legislate "civility," such as in Germany where you can be taken to court for insulting someone or flipping them the "bird."

So yeah, on the whole I agree with the GP -- the EU in general is probably no better or worse than the U.S., though yes, YMMV in individual countries.

As a French living in Austria I have to agree with you: there is racism in Europe, this cannot be overstated.

I do not believe, like your link to the 2005 riots in France on wikipedia says, that the riots from 2005 had a racial motivation. The situation with the French suburbs is complicated and people's origins are a part of it, but just a part of it. The French version of the same wikipedia article mentions suburbs with poverty, unemployment and lack of safety as the context where the English version mentions "a series of riots by Muslim, Arab and North African immigrants". Both might be true (although they were definitely white non-muslim people in there too) but as you know there is a difference between correlation and causation.

It is also true that in many European countries we have political parties mainly focused on racism (let's call it as it is).These parties are usually not one of the two main parties though. In the USA you have the republican party, which as you know is one of the two main parties. Here's what they've done [wikipedia.org].

On a related note, I have to remind you about segregation in the USA. You probably know about Rosa Parks. Let's not forget lynching, which apparently lasted until the 1960's [wikipedia.org].

Since that's already a long time ago, maybe you want to look at the recent presidential election in the USA [wikipedia.org].Funny how black people vote for the black candidate and white people vote for the white candidate. If that's not racism, I don't know what is. Interestingly, the black candidate also has the majority for all non-white demographic subgroups. Look at it any way you like, you will always trace it back to racism.

I could go on, I won't, some people already have, it's here [wikipedia.org].

I agree that the USA are better than Europe at protecting freedom of expression, by the way. I really wish we had a similar freedom of expression in Europe. But if you want to say how the USA are better than Europe for some things, maybe you shouldn't mention racism: both Europe and the USA are awfully racist in their own way.

In every country freedom of expression has boundaries. In some European countries, those boundaries are tighter than in the USA. Certain opinions are forbidden, negationism and revisionism are obvious examples for France and Austria. So you are not allowed to express certain opinions just because they do not match the official History. My point here is not to discuss whether these opinions make sense (full disclaimer: I don't think they do). I just find it wrong that there is censorship on opinions. Plus, it can give the impression that there is a hidden truth behind this. Chomsky has a nice way of putting it:

"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Stalin and Hitler, for example, were dictators in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."

If you actually lived in any random European country I doubt you'd be making that claim.

I'm living in a random European country and would certainly make that claim.

There's a degree of logging, but the logs are held by the ISPs and may only be queried with normal court order.

Granted I'm actually in the process of relocating to the US (why? don't know), but I'm not afraid of the NSA. I'm sure they couldn't care less about my personal correspondence...
I'm not saying I don't think it is a serious violation of human rights, only that it probably has limited practical implications for me.

There always differences, also in healthcare, but given that I'm not poor or ill, it'll probably have few implications for me.

11. A 13-year-old was served an order banning him from using the word "grass" anywhere in England and Wales.

12. In May 2004, a 16-year-old boy was banned from behaving in an anti-social manner at school. The five year order covers the whole of England and Wales and came as a response to his disruption of a science class

19. The oldest recipient of an order to date is an 87-year-old who among other things is forbidden from being sarcastic to his neighbours (July 2003). He was subsequently found guilty of breaking the terms of his order on three separate occasions. He awaits sentencing but the judge has already made it clear that "there will be no prison for an 88 year old man".

The UK. Oh, wait we are subject to the same program the NSA is running and we have less oversight and resort to underlying law than the US.

GCHQ (UK equivalent of NSA) is monitoring 600m telephone events a day. That's pretty much every phone call in the country. Our politicians say its all above board and legal. We don't have a written constitution to refer to the best bet being the European Convention on Human Rights.

He talked to the civilian Chinese newspaper about the US government hacking Chinese civilian servers.

I trust him, if his motive was really to sell those secrets for money to the Chinese, he would've done it covertly. He wants everyone, not just the Chinese, to have information about what the US Secret Police is doing. Want to bet that there are backups of ALL the files on NSA's illegal activities in the hands of Guardian reporters too? Snowden can disappear at any moment, he'll have trusted someone like Greenwald/a Guardian IT person to take care of his secrets, maybe as an insurance policy as well.

Just like we get pissed if the Chinese hacked Google, the Chinese are pissed that the US hacked into university servers. If it were military targets like the Pentagon, we would think it's fair game...

It's the nsa's job to spy on foreign frenemies. For an American to expose this is treason. What moral excuse could there possibly be?

Because they were also spying domestically, and Snowden would be punished instead of being treated as a whistleblower. Any deals he made with other nations (deals, mind you, that have no proof to have occurred) would have been made in exchange for protection.

Or do you think it would have been morally superior to have Snowden arrested, tried, and executed as a traitor from day one only for reporting illegal operations underway? On my compass, the most moral choices from the set of all choices are those where Snowden is allowed to be a free man.

It's the nsa's job to spy on foreign frenemies. For an American to expose this is treason. What moral excuse could there possibly be?

well.. that's all fine and dandy, but in case you missed it they were just spying everyone and then later maybe figuring out if they were americans or not - and if they were, just get a letter stamped and they were good to go.

and then of course - the rest of the world thinks that NSA is just bunch of dickheads who are illegally spying them. yes, NSA spying me is illegal so fuck you and where can I send the extradition requests? so bear with me just for this one thought: why would any other country do anything to turn Snowden in? why, when everyone in the rest of the world has interests in USA tuning down it's spying efforts? for everyone else outside USA his so called treason was a favor and consequently usa is getting called left and right on it's hypocracitic policies - that's why american politicians are pissed off, in the past few weeks they have lost all what was left of their moral high ground(and there weren't a lot to lose to begin with).

they even made the mistake of trying to get a political refugee sent back home - from fucking China! You can bet they're having a field day filing requests in China right now for dissidents - not because America is going to return them, but just to piss them off now that they were let to gain that ground(and also so that usa can't bitch them for not stopping Snowden at the airport despite missing a valid passport).

Provided that the news have gone into North Korea they will also be doing the same shit - technically everyone who left them with their secrets is a traitor and according to the logic USA just used they can argue that they should be sent home(to be sent to prison camps for treason, espionage and various other crimes).

if you're not in the US, how is it illegal for NSA to spy on you? what law is that breaking? hint - none.

I know this may be hard for you to believe but this country was founded on the principle of human rights (or natural rights) as written about by John Locke. The idea was to found a minimal government which was not supposed to be in the business of trampling on such rights that Locke asserted all human beings possessed just by being homo sapiens. Perhaps you would like to argue that the Chinese are not human or not as human as Americans?

Probably you are thinking that rights are really privileges that our government was kind enough to allow us to have when and as they see fit. Privileges can be revoked however and the US government has been doing a lot of that in the past decade.

So in your view only Americans possess human rights? It's okay to slaughter foreigners since they are not specifically mentioned in the constitution? The constitution does not specifically state that only American citizens are protected from government violence or abuse. I don't believe that the Founders would have argued that only humans that happened to be born within the borders of their new republic possessed rights.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Do these sound like the sort of guys who think that only Americans have any rights and that it would be just fine for the leaders of their new republic to murder / imprison / torture or basically do whatever they feel like to anyone not born within its borders? Either all humans have a set of basic rights or none of us do. Either a government respects human rights or it doesn't. Perhaps you want to argue that Americans are more human than the rest of the homo sapiens on the planet? It may not be our government's duty to protect the rights of foreigners within their own countries, but it certainly is their duty not to actively violate their human rights. That goes against the founding principles of our country. It also just seems wrong and unnecessary.

Very well, Germany. They're doing the same thing. It should be noted, that this is just what we know today. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if numerous other European countries were all doing the same thing.

Yes, all free... unless your opinions on the history of WWII differ from the "official version". Or if you are muslim, and want to wear observant clothing. Or if you have a reason to defend yourself. Etc.

Well what do you know: Different countries have different laws. Water is wet, and grass is green also. BUT that does not alter the fact that America is a surveillance, police state, and has been for a while. Your freedom is as illusive as a soap bubble. And I can cite many stupid little things that America cites as "criminal acts". That's not the point.

Yes, all free... unless your opinions on the history of WWII differ from the "official version". Or if you are muslim, and want to wear observant clothing. Or if you have a reason to defend yourself. Etc.

I think that you don't undsertand the concept of comparisons. I was not stating that these countries are perfectly free. I was stating that they are freer than the USA.

Uh hum, even albino crows? Anyway, the statement is true; all governments are pretty much shit. They start out fine with a small number of people but aren't flexible enough to handle the iceberg of people hiding underneath. If you're under a government, you're in a sinking titanic with a drunk captain patching holes and trying to pacify us by giving away free buckets to use against the oncoming rogue wave.

unless your opinions on the history of WWII differ from the "official version"

This statement does not make any sense, in no country in Europe it is illegal to debate about history.In Germany and Austria there are laws against denying the (well documented and absolutely non-desputable) crimes of the Nazi's ( in Austria it's the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbotsgesetz_1947 [wikipedia.org]).

This has nothing to do with "disagreeing with the official version", the was passed shortly after WW2 and was/is there to prevent the spreading of lies and misinformation that and pro Nazi propaganda.

Regarding your other points, yes, there is racism in any country, and the European ones are no exception,but compared to the US, the situtation is a lot better in a lot of European countries.

In Germany and Austria there are laws against denying the (well documented and absolutely non-desputable) crimes of the Nazi's

Who gets to decide what is "absolutely non-disputable"? Once you start arresting people for expressing their opinions, the path from "you cannot praise the Nazis" to "you cannot criticize the government" is steep and slippery.

Hmm, I don't know, Europe has a lot of good things but I do consider racism is less of an issue in the US, especially the east coast than what some friends of me had to endure in the Netherlands, Spain and Germany. They are wonderful countries but talk to any immigrant that does not look European and that knows both sides of the pond. I guarantee you most responses will favor the US.

Depends on your definition of freedom. In those countries you could argue that children are free from religion imposed on them by their parents while they are at school, that women are free from the oppression of being forced to cover their faces, and that people are mostly free from the threat of violence so don't need to train themselves to kill and carry weapons.

Even banning holocaust denial could be argued to be similar to banning people shouting "fire" in a packed theatre. Both can lead to disastrous consequences.

Europe has a different idea of what freedom is. The US does not have a monopoly on the definition.

Norway here. There are minor antisemitic far-right groupings (Vigrid, Norgespatriotene), though modern far-right ideology is much more anti-immigrant that anti-Jewish. Muslims in their observant clothing in Oslo are far more common than in NY (yes, I have been there), some middle-easterners I know joked that parts of Oslo look like Lahore (and thank the flying spaghetti monster for that, at least there is some decent food around!). Norway has a murder rate 8 times lower than the US, and in one place where you need to defend yourself (Svalbard, from polar bears) you are handed a shotgun after getting off the plane.

I also lived in Germany, and while neo-Nazis are ostensibly banned they do have their stores (Thor Steinar chain) and their not-so-well-disguised party (NPD), plus some others. Also there, muslims wear what they want, and the murder rate is 6 times lower than the US.

Clearly you haven't been around polar bears, or know much about them. They get up to 10 ft. long, and run up to 40km/h. Range on the spray is what, max 25 ft? In a generally windy environment, that's not a very good window of opportunity. They stalk people as food when hungry, and playing dead doesn't work. Shotguns are versatile, nozzles don't freeze, you can load them with rubber shot to go non lethal. They mostly avoid people, but if it doesn't, you need to be ready to defend yourself. - if you want to o

The question is... if these countries had the budget (err... were willing to put themselves into huge amounts of debt), would they eventually create the same programs as the US? In other words, are the freedoms a result of the will of the people or from more limited resources?

All western European countries have hate-speech laws. In 2008, the eu adopted a framework decision on “Combating Racism and Xenophobia” that obliged all member states to criminalize certain forms of hate speech. On the other side of the Atlantic, the Supreme Court of the United States has gradually increased and consolidated the protection of hate speech under the First Amendment. The European concept of freedom of expression thus prohibits certain content and viewpoints, whereas, with certain exceptions, the American concept is generally concerned solely with direct incitement likely to result in overt acts of lawlessness.

Yet the origin of hate-speech laws has been largely forgotten. The divergence between the United States and European countries is of comparatively recent origin. In fact, the United States and the vast majority of European (and Western) states were originally opposed to the internationalization of hate-speech laws. European states and the U.S. shared the view that human rights should protect rather than limit freedom of expression.

Rather, the introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union and allies. Their motive was readily apparent. The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech.

As Americans, Europeans and others contemplate the dividing line emerging on the extent to which free speech should be limited to criminalize the “defamation of religions” and “Islamophobia,” launched by the member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (oic) since 1999, they should bear this forgotten history in mind. However well-intended—and its initial proponents were anything but well-intended—the Western acceptance of hate-speech laws severely limits the ability of liberal democracies to counter attempts to broaden the scope of hate-speech laws under international human rights law, with potentially devastating consequences for the preservation of free speech.

We can save the discussion about the US 2nd Amendment rights for another time. There may be more.

The European concept of freedom of expression thus prohibits certain content and viewpoints, whereas, with certain exceptions, the American concept is generally concerned solely with direct incitement likely to result in overt acts of lawlessness.

The author misunderstands the European situation. Our laws are supposed to be the same as the US ones, i.e. they prevent incitement likely to result in overt acts of lawlessness. We just place the bar for that differently, IMHO too low, but the intention is the same.

Some states go further than required by EU, which complicates the situation and leads to the kind of misunderstanding that we see here. The author confuses the two. We are not like the US, we don't have federal laws. The EU can create directives

People say that all the time, but if you know of a country that offers citizens stronger assurances and greater practical liberties, we'd love to hear about it. (Preferably, those liberties should extend to immigrants as well as natives.)

Preferably, those liberties should extend to immigrants as well as natives.

The US is the only place I have ever been where that is apparently not the case. I was quite shocked to hear politicians and government officials on the news at one point explaining that the protections of the US constitution did not apply for foreigners in the US. While it is understandable that things like voting and extended habitation rights do depend on citizenship laws concerning the rights of someone accused of a crime, or freedom of speech have to be the same for everyone - it's fundamental to justice. They are called human, not US citizen, rights for a reason.

Panama and Costa Rica. Being some of the stables countries in Latin America you truly have a level of freedom that needs to be lived in order to know that is real, without the crazy issues of having corrupt authorities on your ass. They truly are immigrant friendly plus Panama has pretty good levels of infrastructure. Those countries might feel like a small town sometimes but honest to god, they are truly wonderful places to live if you are able to secure a decent monthly payment.

People say that all the time, but if you know of a country that offers citizens stronger assurances and greater practical liberties, we'd love to hear about it.

Perhaps the problem is that you're looking for liberties from mechanisms that are designed to infringe liberty. The 18th Century version works better than the 12th Century version, but one would expect more Slashdotters to demand a 21st Century upgrade.

Well, specifically I was thinking of the right to openly join an unpopular political party like the Nazis or Communists. Not that I want to do that! But who knows what will be considered subversive in the future?

How about citizenship for the descendants of immigrants? (Yeah, I know the US has problems with kids who came across the border from Latin America. The discussion is about whether there's a country that is more free than the US, not whether the US is without flaws.)

Equal protection: if my skin color is different from the majority population's and someone harasses you, do the police bother to prosecute? How about if I'm gay? (Again, the US has spotty quality here, but name a country that does better.) What happens when I apply for a job, try to rent an apartment, etc?

Religious freedom: can I convert to Islam? How about Scientology? Can I promote my religion in public? Or what if I'm an atheist and don't want to pay a tithe to the local church/mosque/temple?

Rights of the accused: how long can I be held without charges? What access do I have to evidence against me? Between the USA PATRIOT Act and historic racial/economic tensions, the US is exceptionally bad at this, so some European countries may easily win here.

These are the sorts of things I have in mind. I'm better informed than most Americans, but that's not saying much. I know some European expatriates who are totally disinterested in going back. I can't really say whether the US or France/Germany are worse, but I can say it's not simple and clear-cut. It depends on what matters to you.

I don't know the US details, but in general, all of the items you mentioned are very good here in Germany... I would be interested to hear how the US compares.

How about citizenship for the descendants of immigrants?

I'm a dual national of New Zealand and Australia living in Germany. My wife is German. Our daughter holds all three nationalities and none of the countries takes issue with that.

From what I understand, if my wife were not German either, I or her would have to have been here eight years or hold permanent residence (i.e. actually have immigrated rather than being a 'long term visitor') in order for our child to get German citizenship at birth. If neither is the case, the child is not German at birth, however can choose to apply for citizenship once they meet the same requirements as anyone else (generally just living here for long enough; so if the parents do end up being permanent residents or of course apply for citizenship themselves, the child will likely become German)

Equal protection: if my skin color is different from the majority population's and someone harasses you, do the police bother to prosecute? How about if I'm gay? (Again, the US has spotty quality here, but name a country that does better.) What happens when I apply for a job, try to rent an apartment, etc?

Here in Germany, there is some level of racism by a minority against Turkish people and occasionally Arabic people; however it's generally not very bad (not as bad as for example, what I saw against pretty much any "non-perfectly-white foreigner" in Australia). The law states equal protection and rights for all and there are official channels/procedures in place that can be followed if you believe you have been unfairly discriminated against. These do get used from time to time and the penalties are harsh. Police are very thorough about making sure they do not discriminate as the punishments for them are extremely harsh if they are found guilty of doing so.

I've never seen anyone have a problem with jobs or apartments other than when they don't speak the language, and that's more of a practical matter than a discriminatory one (if the job requires German, you can't really do it... and if your landlord doesn't speak the same language as you, it's a bit hard to both sign a rental agreement or conduct general affairs with them (not impossible; but it's probably easier to find a landlord that does have a common language with you))

There is extremely little to no discrimination against people based on sexual preference or activity as far as I've seen (even in a fairly 'reserved' pub I used to go to, there was a fairly flamboyant gay man that used to hang out there as well and no-one took issue with it at all (except when he got very drunk and a little 'hands-on'; but then it was more or less just telling him sternly that his advances were not welcome - really no different to the same behaviour by straight people)).

Religious freedom: can I convert to Islam? How about Scientology? Can I promote my religion in public? Or what if I'm an atheist and don't want to pay a tithe to the local church/mosque/temple?

Germany does have an archaic and stupid system of paying a church tax. However if you declare yourself to be an atheist (or a religion other than the ones they've got processes in place for) there is no church tax due. I am an atheist and pay nothing to any religious group.

You are free to 'officially' convert to any religion you wish that is formally recognised as a religion. Even in such cases that your religion is not formally recognised, you are welcome to practice your beliefs at home; you just can't be officially recognised as that religion by the state (and why should you care unless you religion dictates that you do something otherwise illegal?).

Rights of the accused: how long can I be held without charges? What access do I have to evidence against

Let me explain. The government collects the tax on behalf of the church. If you are in a church, you'll have to pay it. If you previously were in a church, you have to quit it and prove that to the government so they stop collecting the tax. If you never were a church member in first place, you don't have to declare anything. The government does not care what you believe in, it only cares whether you are member of a certain club they collect membership fees for.

To add a little information to what the parent poster has sad. The state collects church tax for the Roman Catholic Church and Lutheran Protestant Church. The reasons for this arrangement go back to the early 19th century when the state appropriated the land that formerly belonged to the church. This was meant as a compensation for losses incurred by the state when Napoleon occupied the Western Rhineland. Don't ask me how that makes sense.

So, if you belong to either of those two denominations, the state will collect a church tax from you and pass it off to the church. To get out of this you have to go to the Amtsgericht (local court) and declare that you're not part of the respective church community anymore. You don't have to declare that you're an atheist, though.

You right, this arrangement is stupid but it's almost 200 years old and not likely to change anytime soon. Those who have to pay the tax don't seem to mind. Interestingly, it was never meant to be permanent. We have a saying here in Germany: "Provisorien halten am längsten." Literally translated it means that provisional arrangements last the longest.

I will undo some moderation so as to answer your points from a UK perspective.

1. In Britain we have both active Communist Parties (and a whole assortment of other hard-left groups) and active Fascist Parties (including both the BNP & NF). You are free to join any of them (although I'd prefer you didn't).

2. Any child born to a person who is "settled" in the UK (that is, has the right to remain in the country indefinitely- in practice including all immigrants and excluding tourists/visitors) becomes a citizen.

3. We've had our fair share of scandals over the years, and I think in general the UK has come out of the other side with first class protections for minority groups. Not perfect, obviously, but the legal framework we have now is extremely robust. Anecdotally, we seem to get far fewer racism/homophobia scandals here than the US seems to get.

4. You can be any religion you like. I'm an atheist (and a strongly willed one too), and I've barely had so much as a sniff of a reason to complain. Atheism is not a dirty word- both the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are avowed atheists, and nobody seems to mind. You can be Catholic, Protestant, Muslim (up-to and including the hardcore varieties with the full face masks and so forth), Scientologist, Wiccan, Moony, whatever. You can wear your religious kit in public, take your holy days off work, all the things you could ask for. We can be a bit touchy where a person's religious belief is used to justify discrimination or whatnot in conflict with point 3 (for example, a recent case where a Hotelier refused to serve a gay couple as it was against his "Christian values"); in these instances, point 3 tends to trump point 4. Back on the politics front; I can't imagine there being much fuss if a (moderate) Muslim were a candidate to be Prime Minister, in contrast to the terrifying "Obama is a Muslim" nonsense in the States. Although having typed that, I'm probably prepared to be negatively surprised on that front.

5. I believe pre-charge detention is limited to 24 hours, extendible up to 96 hours with the agreement of a Magistrate's Court. This compares with 72 hours "in normal circumstance" in the USA, so pretty comparable.

To be honest, the US & UK are probably very similar in all sorts of ways. Most things you like about the US you'll probably find here, most things you dislike about the US are probably here too.

No, they won't 'keep him for free', but will gladly offer him sanctaury, particularly as his presence there is going to be a constant source of annoyance to the US, a country they dislike and distrust.
And no, I don't think I'm naive.
Snowden has let us all see that none of our data or online activity is remotely private and that our information is everything and everywhere. Because various governments share intelligence, it means for example that a UK citizen (whose data is sort of 'legally protected' from UK surveillance agencies) could find his data being forwarded to him by say the US government. Because shared intelligence from a foreign source is not subject to the level of legal scrutiny and constraint as information gathered by UK sources, it could immediately become more accessable to UK agencies. And this works the other way round. It means that safeguards put in place to 'protect' a country's own citizens can be more easily circumvented.

[Ecuadoran Foreign Minister Ricardo] Patino said Ecuador was still considering Snowden’s request for asylum while also delivering what appeared to be an impassioned defense of former the CIA contractor. Patino, whose government has been sharply criticized for silencing journalists at home, insisted that Snowden’s case was fundamentally one based on the principle of human rights and praised Snowden for disclosing a surveillance program that had affected nations around the globe.

no high school diplomawalked away from a job with one of the world's premier consulting companiesbeing charged for espionage by the US Government and can never return to the USAmay spend the rest of his life in jailon the runliving on handouts from foreign governments

I would like to point out that Edward Snowden not only has a physical resemblance to the' Gordon Freeman' character in the Half-Life Game Series, but has effectively become 'Anti-Citizen One'- in real life.

Seeing all the implicit (eyes being turned) and explicit (ecuador, wikileaks, others) help he's getting, one could almost get the impression that the US Government (not people) is seriously unpopular around the world.

Is it just the USA that doesn't understand the traditional use of Passports and Visas?

A Visa was only required to 'Enter' the destination country. As Snowden was never going to enter Russia (transit lounges are no-mans land) he didn't need one. No reason to prevent him flying to Russia.

A Passport should not be needed to leave a country. Afterall, you are LEAVING, what cause to stop you?On arrival in Russa, he's not entering the country, therefore no need for a Passport again.

I'm not aware of any other country that has destroyed the free travel rights of people as much as the US. Even to fly from Canada to Cuba the US has the 'aquired' the right to deny you flights, because it's close enough to their airspace. And as the airlines are so terrified of loosing landing rights to US international airports they comply.

In any case, no country is actually obliged to require a visa or passport. The US cancelling his passport isn't an instruction to Russia not to let him in (and I'm sure Russia would absolutely love to ignore a US instruction anyway). After all, Russian border control is no business of the US. It's not like he needs a passport to prove who he is or where he's from anyway.

It is my personal opinion that Snowden (and even Assange) will only be safe as long as Correa is in power in Quinto.But as a history of Equador (and frankly entire Latin America) predicts from the past -- it will not be too long before the power will change due to hunta (as 1972-1979), or removal from the office (like Abdalá Bucaram) or a continues power struggle (Rosalía Arteaga / Fabián Alarcón).Either way, Equadorian history predicts that the next government will be pro-American.

It is my personal opinion that Snowden (and even Assange) will only be safe as long as Correa is in power in Quinto.But as a history of Equador (and frankly entire Latin America) predicts from the past -- it will not be too long before the power will change due to hunta (as 1972-1979), or removal from the office (like Abdalá Bucaram) or a continues power struggle (Rosalía Arteaga / Fabián Alarcón).Either way, Equadorian history predicts that the next government will be pro-American.

You've expressed my fears and even expanded on them.

South American sanctuary can't be more than fleeting. And refuge in Cuba pretty much guarantees Castro will expire immediately and upheaval will happen.

Not liking his chances.

Not to mention, any flight that has to have a routing to the States in case of emergency means a) he's refused onto the flight, or b) flight is "mysteriously" diverted to US.

And most modern airline protocols mean they can't plot routes with > 4 hours from an airport, I believe. C

But as a history of Equador (and frankly entire Latin America) predicts from the past -- it will not be too long before the power will change due to hunta (as 1972-1979), or removal from the office (like AbdalÃ Bucaram) or a continues power struggle (RosalÃa Arteaga / FabiÃn AlarcÃn).

Certainly possible. But there's also the recent trend of Central and South American countries getting sick and tired of America's bullshit. Even if a CIA stooge takes power in Ecuador, Snowden might have e

Never been in a prison, have you? I worked in one when I was in grad school. It's not as "romantic" as you think. Or in ways you might enjoy.

Snowden already is in a prisoners position. He's now the property of whatever foreign intelligence agency is protecting him and they don't have to respect his human rights. They are nice to him because he's giving them what they want. Do you really believe he's being protected out of government kindness?

Perhaps he didn't want to spend his life in jail and later be hailed as an hero. Perhaps he just wanted that - you for instance - and your compatriots where not so ignorant and understand that he is already one and actually stand up and raised your/their voice for him - like you should have done - instead of bashing his name.

There's nothing saying that a conscientious objector can't look out for their own well-being while also serving the good of the public at large. And the claims he has made to date have been specific accusations based on specific evidence for which he has a reasonable belief that making them public will help to avert problems that will affect the public, which is exactly how proper whistle-blowing should be done.

You're asking him to fall on his own sword after realizing the issues with the organizations he was in, which is entirely unreasonable.

I'm well aware of my history, and what I see is that you've equated two different types of cases that are really quite different.

In the sorts of cases you're citing, the injustices they were facing were aimed at segments of society that had been ignored, pushed aside, or otherwise disdained. What their cause needed was public awareness of the crimes being perpetrated, and the best means for doing so was by putting a face on the matter and by making the point that a non-criminal was being treated as one. By allowing themselves to become victims of the injustice, they were able to give a face to the victims, show the world what the injustices looked like in action, prove that innocent men were being treated as criminals, and rally support to enact change.

Not so in this case, since we need only look in the mirror to see the face of a victim of the crimes that Snowden is bringing to light. We all know full well that we're not all criminals, and yet the injustice is being perpetrated against us. Whether Snowden is a criminal or not is immaterial, since the only question we need to be asking is, "are we all criminals?" Were Snowdown to go to jail at this point, the injustices he'd be facing would be entirely separate from the ones he is fighting against now, and as such, they wouldn't serve any purpose or hold any meaning. It wouldn't make him a martyr or give a face to the victims. It would just make him a victim of a different set of crimes.

What makes you think that Snowden might be a follower of Thoreau? Or MLK or Ghandi? That would be pretty pretentious of him. He saw that the US goverment was doing some bad shit that he thought people should know about. He let people know about it. He did what he thought was right. What happens to him after that doesn't change that fact. And I don't see how sacrificing himself afterward achieves anything at all. Are there not enough dead people or something? I'm not sure I see what hanging him is supposed

If he had just wanted to "inflict maximum damage on his country" he could have just posted all his intelligence data to Wikileaks instead of vetting it through a responsible newspaper.

I seem to recall that what's on WikiLeaks was already vetted, and although different people will have differing opinions on what should and shouldn't have passed vetting, there were a lot of things that didn't pass. Bank account numbers, for one, if memory serves.

If I was in Snowden's situation, I doubt I'd simply sit at home like a lamb awaiting slaughter either. By fleeing, he made sure that the information actually made it to the public. If he'd simply put it out there and it had been intercepted and sup

Bullshit on that. If Snowden had not "fled", his story would have made the evening news and then been buried the next day. Before any of the messy details hit the press.

He did not "flee". He is running, like a clever fox rousing the countryside with the baying of the hounds that are chasing him. Whether he finds a safe haven or is torn apart by those hounds, he is doing the most he could do right now to keep the story alive, and get people to wake up and smell the stench of corruption in the USA permanent

The author of grandparent post got his words mixed up. There were other problems in that post as well. It was really a bit too shrill to be effective. His employer should spend a bit more, and hire a more competent shill next time.

Hanssen and Ames were handing over things like troop strength, locations of CIA operatives, etc. to the Soviets for cash. They weren't blowing the whistle to the press on an illegal internal spying program. Pretty big difference there.

the nsa surveillance is illegal, suspicious and can't stand the light of day. why do you think it was secret?

it's only legal in the sense that the courts and president decided that there wouldn't be any repercussions from it... which again is exactly what he was blowing the whistle on.

And you're acting like america has any real secrets to spill to Russians - they know all about spying their own citizens already, they know nsa does "cyber"crimes abroad. They also know how many tanks you have, how many nukes

Not surprising at all. The flighpath from Moscow to Havana goes over Western Europe, and I would not be surprised if the plane would be unable to get the airspace clearance to complete its planned flight. Another risk is that the plane may be forced to make an unscheduled landing in a country that has a better extradition relationship with that US than China or Russia does.

Exactly what country do you expect him to go to? There are only about 5-6 countries in the world that aren't the total lapdogs of the U.S. government (or at least in bed with them). That doesn't exactly leave him a lot of options if he wants to remain free and not have all his (very important) information just buried again.

I'm going to just assume you're a spin doctor, as otherwise i'd have to be rude and assume you are an idiot.

a) Snowden did not board the plane to cubab) anyone who considers cuba since the soviet union fell apart a threat to america is a moron.c) nothing snowden could have known about troop positions or other such actions or involvement would have been left the same from shortly after the second he leaked his name. This is assuming he even had such knowledge, given his position his access would have been fairly general and non-specific as far as military matters are concerned.

Did you watch Snowden's interview? He said he had access to information detailing missions and the identities as well.Then he leaked a Top Secret G8 spy operation. If he didn't have access then how did we learn about that?

Don't look at the top of the iceberg. He wasn't so special in his organization, and his organization wasn't so special neither. That he knew/had access means that a lot of people had (and keep having) the same access. Before worrying about what he did, think what the others could be doing right now.

Also, the leak on the G8 spying was a side affect. What he was actually leaking was their methods, used in the US and the UK to do illegal spying, and in those documents they use the G8 as an example. Also, the revelation that they are spying on the G8 is one of the most important pieces of information released... their excuse this entire time has been that they are defending against terrorism. But clearly the G8 operation was an attempt to gain economic advantage.